At Least Steyer Had to Pay

At Reason, John Stossel recounts leftist billionaire Tom Steyer's despicable vendetta against scientist Roger Pielke, whom Steyer ultimately hounded out of a position he held at the University of Colorado for over 24 years.

"My views are entirely mainstream," says Pielke. "My work is cited by all three working groups of the IPCC. There's nothing contrarian."

Both Steyer and Pielke agree that "greenhouse gases warm the climate," but Pielke's sin was saying, "it's not the apocalypse."

Because of that, "the Center for American Progress decided to make me a target," he says.

...

Pielke didn't know who funded the smears until WikiLeaks revealed an email to Steyer from ThinkProgress' editor: "Thanks for your support of this work ... it's fair to say, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change."

Think about that.

"Progressive" activists are proud to stop a researcher from writing about what he knows.

Notably, Pielke was also attacked by the Obama White House itself, in a 3,000 word memo.

This should disturb anyone concerned about academic freedom, but conservatives have no business being smug now that we have a Republican President.

As I noted last week, the Trump Administration wants to subordinate all federal research grants to the whims of bureaucrats both before granting (with peer review becoming merely "advisory") and after (with grants being subject to cancellation at any time and at the whims of bureaucrats).

Rather than freeing scientists like Pielke even a little bit from political pressure, that measure will present them with the choice of forgoing all such money -- or parroting the line of the party in charge. It is not hard to see how much cheaper and easier it will be for busybodies like Steyer to manipulate "the science" to fit their preconceived narrative if the party they favor happens to be in charge. It is also all but impossible to imagine federal research money being well-spent going forward after the proposed changes.

As Stossel notes at the end of his piece, Steyer has a real chance of becoming California's next governor, thereby becoming a credible future presidential candidate. Imagine the damage he would be able to do -- now for free! -- to the career of any scientist whose findings or analysis he doesn't care to hear.

-- CAV

Four Neat Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. A man describes his "two-part desk setup, with his long desk having digital and analog sides.

This is an interesting idea, and he claims to be able to shift contexts simply by sliding his chair between the sides.

This may not be for everyone, but it might be worth a look, if you are unhappy with your current setup and want ideas for improving it.

2. I don't edit video often, but when I do, I use ffmpeg, which is cross-platform and a veritable Swiss army knife.

It's nice to know that, should I need to do this on a computer I don't own or control, there is an in-browser implementation of ffmpeg here.

It claims to work on files locally, but its file loader looks like an upload icon, so if that's a concern, dig around a bit before using.

As a bonus -- and despite its name of ffmpeg CLI -- many common actions are iconified on the page.

3. While I am not upset that Google is making its searches more AI-centric, I don't always want to search that way, and I am not alone.

Tech Crunch recently reviewed six solid alternatives to Google.

In addition to DuckDuckGo, which I expected to see on the list, other choices variously offer such features as better privacy and customized means of limiting searches, such as putting out results for news from the left or news from the right.

4. Funny Comment of the Week: From a discussion about colonizing Venus: "At this point we're so deep into the science fiction that it might be easier to just hop into a time machine and colonize Mars before its atmosphere boiled off."

-- CAV

'Captain Boredom' to the Rescue Again!

A recent letter to Miss Manners yielded a couple of answers that fell within the bounds of etiquette, the preferred answer helping me see a new advantage of a strategy for dealing with difficult people I have discussed before. (That strategy is usually called "gray rock.")

The letter writer poses a question that comes with the complication that the difficult person is a neighbor. Thus, while a blunt affirmative might be an appropriate answer to Have I done something to offend you?, the writer seems to want an answer that better reduces future engagement with someone who won't be going away any time soon.

Miss Manners replies:

What you want is a way to make her leave you alone, which can be accomplished with your best look of deep concern and the return question of, "What ever would make you say that?" Then appear not to be paying too much attention when she answers, in the hope that she will review her own actions.

This is classic gray rock, and I agree with some of the commenters that someone as rude as that neighbor was would be unlikely to reflect on her actions.

That said, as someone who is more likely to just want to be done, I failed to appreciate an advantage that another commenter noted of the response:

MM's answer does not give the neighbor anything to manipulate the LW with. It does not give her an opening for excuses, or arguments, or lectures. It provides nothing juicy to gossip about, nothing to use to smear the LW to their mutual acquaintances, nothing to start a feud about.

It presents a wall of indifference with no explanation - a smooth surface which can't be climbed or broken through. Eventually the neighbor will retreat in puzzlement, with nothing to accuse the LW of except vague things like "she's cold" or "she's not a good neighbor".

The LW lives in this neighborhood, she does not want to make actual enemies, she just wants to disengage from the neighbor. [bold added]

This response is similar to what I'd do naturally, but after seeing the more blunt reply, I saw it as a bit of a toss-up, in part because I don't think about gossip very much.

That said, the situation that ultimately caused the letter-writer to inquire never would have happened to me. I would have had no trouble stopping the initial boundary violation at all, because things like that raise my hackles too much.

I nevertheless am grateful to have learned of another of Captain Boredom's superpowers.

-- CAV

The Time to Save Science is Now

Having heard about a Trump Administration proposal to make federal research grants subject to the approval of political appointees, I fortunately remembered Pharma blogger Derek Lowe's tireless efforts to chronicle and explain the Trump Administration's attacks on bioscience.

I am glad I did, because his relatively short post, "Action! Action Now," summarizes the threat, leads to good sources for more information, and explains what one can do to fight this horrendous proposal.

Without explicitly mentioning Lysenkoism, Lowe will have ably reminded anyone of it:

All this alone is enough of a blueprint for disaster, obviously. But that same section goes on to pound the nails in further by emphasizing that peer review recommendations must not be considered as binding in any way on the decisions of the political staff, and that all grants must comply with the administration's "Gold Standard Science" ideas. Institutions that have shown themselves willing to get on board with this nebulous cloud of bullshit will get priority in grant awards; it says so in as many words (well, minus the "nebulous bullshit" part). What is "Gold Standard Science", you may well ask? Whatever the administration likes. No definitions are provided. What's more, active grants will be subject to termination at any time if they are held to be inconsistent with agency priorities. Who decides that? Why, political appointees, who else?. No other basis is needed - no accusations of proof of malfeasance or fraud, just "We don't like it". [bold added]

The bullet points from one of Lowe's sources alone are cause for alarm (Search "Elizabeth Ginexi OMB rule" if link does not work.):

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards
2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding
3. "Gold Standard Science" as an Undefined Political Test
4. Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason
5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions
6. Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration
7. "Domestic-First" Framework for Research Awards
8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational "Affiliations"
9. E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients
10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies
11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval
12. Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be "Necessary"
13. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable
14. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted
15. New "Issue Advocacy" Prohibition
16. Program Goals Must "Align with Administration Policies and Priorities"
17. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice
18. Agencies Can Restrict Eligibility to Specific Nonprofit Categories
19. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants

What the hell?

I have long advocated getting the government out of research funding not directly related to its proper purpose (e.g., defense), but know that this is an unrealistic goal in the short- to medium- term. That said, I have just as long advocated that what funding there is be dispensed as best as domain experts can determine and be as free as possible from political considerations.

This proposal would accomplish the exact opposite of all of that. As such, it arguably would be worse than simply cutting off all such funding cold turkey.

Indeed, the possibility of the government dictating how scientists work is, by itself, a major reason to end its role as a major funding source.

I highly recommend reading Lowe's post in its entirety, especially to anyone whose career might be affected. Among other things, he offers a concrete step anyone can take to speak up.

-- CAV

Will Oddball Dems Cause a 'Blue Ripple?'

David Catron of the Spectator takes a look at a few of the "very large number of truly weird candidates" running for the Democrats in congressional contests and thinks the GOP could pick up seats in the upcoming elections:

The most prominent exemplar of these strange Democrats is Texas Senate nominee James Talarico. The Lone Star Liberty PAC released a new ad featuring videos of Talarico saying things that all but guarantee his loss in November regardless of which Republican he faces. For example, when asked to name something he loves other than friends or family he answered "I love the trans children." He is also shown saying, "There are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six." Speaking about immigration policy he says, "Our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front." Talarico is now posing as a populist, but it's unlikely that this masquerade will fool many Texans.

The next one he looks at is Graham Platner, who sported a Nazi tattoo for much of his life and would have been rightly drummed out of his race by now had he been a Republican.

You get the idea.

I got déjà vu.

This sounds like a repeat, with the parties reversed, of Biden's midterms, of which I wrote:

As I argued recently, the Trumpist wing of the GOP, which is harming it so much, must be defeated. How did it do? Let's look at Trump's hand-picked senatorial candidates, telequack Mehmet Oz, anti-abortion philanderer Herschel Walker, election denier Blake Masters, and traitor to the Electoral College Ron Johnson.

Sadly, as of now, any or all of them could still win...

These were all winnable races, but only Ron Johnson won -- in Wisconsin. Trump's loony candidates arguably cost his party three Senate seats then.

So now we have a race that, given the unpopularity of the President, could be a wave election for the other party, and that party is doing now what Trump did then: make things unnecessarily close by seemingly going out of the way to find candidates that a normal person wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

This time it's worse, as we need not only a check on a lousy President, but a repudiation of MAGA, which has proved inimical to American ideals and poses a real threat to the Republic.

-- CAV

Updates

6-3-26: Corrected Ron Johnson's home state.

Another Clown Takes Soccer Bait

If there is one thing I have learned I can count on in my decades of soccer fandom, it's that the poor behavior of some fans will draw a certain type of commentator out of the closet, at which point, said commentator will happily tell us all what an ass he is.

This year's "winner" so far -- after all, the World Cup hasn't even started -- is one Bill Glahn of the conservative PowerLine blog, which I vaguely recall having (once had?) an Everton supporter on its writing team.

As is typical of this type of rant, bad fan behavior is treated as both typical of fans of the sport and something you'd never see in the good old U.S. of A. And, Q.E.D., everything about the sport becomes a target for ridicule -- by someone so pissed-off that he can't keep his eyes uncrossed.

Just as a disturbing number of Parisians took the Champion's League final as an excuse to start rioting (with some not even bothering to wait for the result), Glahn takes the riots as sufficient excuse to attempt to torch a sport beloved across the globe, including by millions of Americans, myself included, who speak English as our native language.

I will salute Glahn for boiling his bilge down to one exemplary sentence:

If you don't know, and you shouldn't, "one-nil" means the score was 1-0 at that juncture.

One-nil is perfectly good English and can apply to sporting contexts outside soccer, so I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. We shouldn't know English? We shouldn't know anything at all about a sport enjoyed nearly everywhere? We shouldn't bother to understand the subject matter that we're talking about?

Beats the hell out of me.

In any event, I do not wish to downplay the cultural rot such occurrences indicate, and that emphatically includes not pretending that a particular sport is to blame or that our nation has somehow escaped the rot.

Regarding the sport: Just off the top of my head, Arsenal, the team I support, won the English Premier League just a couple of weeks ago, There was a spontaneous gathering of tens of thousands outside its home stadium on the weeknight that a favorable result ended the title contest -- with no arrests made, according to a podcaster I follow.

The victory parade on the weekend was not incident-free, but went under the radar of most people because there was no rioting. There were only 16 arrests at an event with an estimated attendance of 1.5 million people. Far more people had to be rescued from heights that they climbed so they could enjoy the spectacle.

In Paris, nearly 900 people have been arrested so far.

As for similar in the U.S.: The Paris "soccer riot" is worse, but in terms of arrests, still just in the same order of magnitude as the "basketball riot" (to use a sport that's lost on me) in Detroit in 1990 after the Pistons won the NBA Finals: 170 arrests in that one, in a city with fewer citizens than attendees in the Arsenal parade.

It's disturbing that there were even as many arrests in London as there were, and it's a cultural issue worth contemplating. Blaming a sport one doesn't like is not the way to start.

Soccer isn't burning Paris now any more than basketball looted Detroit in 1990.

-- CAV

Blog Roundup

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "Will You Help Us Find the New Intellectuals?," by ARI Staff (New Ideal):

We just launched the Atlas Prize for Independent Thought -- a competition challenging 16-22-year-olds to analyze, question, defend, or critique the ideas in Atlas Shrugged featuring a $100,000 top prize. [The entry deadline is September 1. --ed]

250 words/1 minute

2. "What's Wrong With the World?," by Jaana Woiceshyn (How to Be Profitable and Moral):

In true capitalism, protection of individual rights is the government's only role and includes solving disputes through the court system. The government does not initiate force against its citizens or other countries; it uses force only in retaliation against those who do: thieves, fraudsters, other criminals, and foreign invaders. Because the government doesn't collect taxes, it cannot "re-distribute" wealth and create welfare programs to pursue social justice. (Nor can it engage in cronyism and hand out favors to the highest bidders). People are left free to pursue their own interests, to produce and trade to the best of their abilities. The small minority who are not able to work, will depend on private charity and insurance.

1000 words/3 minutes

3. "Germ Theory Is Not a Narrative," by Amesh Adalja (Tracking Zebra):

D.A. Henderson's smallpox eradication campaign was not an act of biopower. It was an act of human reason applied to a significant and deadly human problem. That is what infectious disease medicine is -- and has always been. Germ theory is not a narrative. It is a description of reality. As an infectious disease physician, I have treated patients with illnesses whose course changed because germ theory was true: bacterial infections halted by antibiotics, opportunistic infections prevented with antimicrobials, diseases made rare by vaccines. My field has always fought for civilization by trying to master an inhospitable natural world (as it always has) -- it now faces an anti-human attack wielded by an army of postmodern nihilists who have been granted government power.

740 words/2 minutes

4. "Immigration -- Some Mostly New Thoughts," by Harry Binswanger (Value for Value):

Differences over ideas, not foods or dress, are an entirely different matter. The difference between Islamic jihadists and Americans is a matter of literal life and death, not something optional. Even there, globalization will have a big impact. The ultimate defeat of Islamism will be accomplished by young people in the Islamic countries seeing the rational values of the West. That's unless the West commits suicide -- a distinct possibility.

1400 words/5 minutes

-- CAV